Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 156 Ariz. 189 - Duron v. Fleischman

Duron v. Fleischman’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
May 2014
most recently cited

16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently May 2014

16 state decisions

601988199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Hinson v. Coulter

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Rule 3.4”), provides: "The summons may be served in the same manner as the summons in a civil action, except that service may not be by publication____ [A] summons may be served by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested. Return of the receipt shall be prima facie evidence of service.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]he following periods should be excluded in computing the tíme for trial: ... the period of delay resulting from the absence or unavailability of the defendant.” Standards for Criminal Justice, Standard 12-2.3(e) (2d ed. 1980 & Supp.1986). “Absence” has been defined as instances when a defendant’s “whereabouts are unknown and in addition the defendant is attempting to avoid apprehension or prosecution or his or her whereabouts cannot be determined by due diligence.” Id.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “whereabouts are known but his or her presence for trial cannot be obtained or whenever [a] defendant resists being returned to the state for trial____” Id. Although the ABA standard establishes a due diligence inquiry for a defendant's absence, Division Two of this court has held that a defendant's unavailability-phrased in Rule 8.4(a) as the”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.